Talk:Silhouette

iPod

Mentioning IPod here is totally irrelevant. 12:30, 5 January 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.90.32.87 (talk • contribs)

I didn't see this comment here before I added a new section mentioning iPod commercials. Why are they irrelevant? --MaskedSheik 05:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Paper?

This article needs to mention the history of cut-paper silhouettes. ―BenFrantzDale 06:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

it also needs to mention in the pop culture thing that in an escape the fate song its mentioned.

Needs a rewrite

This is just such an awful article, I cannot believe it hasn't been dealt with yet. There are bits repeated, frequent grammar mistakes, irrelevant sections etc. If nobody else wants to, I'll have a go in the next few days. - Ultravisitor 18:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

More clarity in introduction

I think that while the origin and artistic meaning of this word are important, there should be a note in the introduction about the silhouette's basic nature and how it is formed in nature. In particular, the article "shadow" defines it in relation to a silhouette in its introduction.

silhouette

I do not assert, but it is my understanding, that until the photograph, the silhouette was the most accurate form of graphic portraiture. I doubt the assertion that it was popular because it was cheap. Larboard 03:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really; prints, drawings and paintings are at least as "accurate" and more informative. A skilled cutter can do an impressive silhouette in about 3 minutes, with just scissors and paper. Johnbod (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Clean the cliche?

--Storkian aka iSoroush ^Talk 22:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Silhouette target shooting

Why is only the metallic (animal) silhouette shooting mentioned? What about these human silhouette targets (made of paper/cardboard like ordinary targets, not of metal) in combat shooting practice (as shown in films but also documentations about shooting practice)? I cannot found these mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia. Is human silhouette shooting of negligible relevance even in the U.S.?--SiriusB (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No it's not of negligible relevance. The reason that it has not been included is simply that the main writer of the article simply did not think about it. Why don't you add an appropriate sentence? Amandajm (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

E.T. Silhouette

I have returned this "Fair use" pic to the article. I believe its use is justified. There are a number of very fine images used here but this is the only one that is really widely known, "iconic" in fact. The use of "silhouette" as an art form is exemplified and made recognizable and memorable by this single image probably more than any other image in any art form. Amandajm (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Russia

There is a strong tradition in Russia of silhouette art, but i cant find any appropriate references. example is the amazing work of Turburam Sandagdorj [1], but this website doesnt have any solid info on the tradition. this tradition may then extend to the Silk Road region.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Gallery of recent images update

Put your suggestions here. They need to be good.

• 
  Crescent Moon and the bright planet Venus and the silhouette of the Auxilliary Telescope
• 
  Sun rises over al-Masjid al-Nabawi
• 
  George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin at Bocharov Ruchey

Article still needs work to clean up and bring up to encyclopaedia standard

This article is still a grab-bag of bits and pieces. It is fast being overloaded with images, many of which merely repeat previous examples. A silhouette is not a difficult concept to grasp so it does not require many examples.

A gallery of contemporary imagery only invites more of dubious quality or relevance. I feel that section should be removed - Wikipedia is not the place for a gallery of snapshots of sunrises - that's the role of sites like Flickr. Would other editors object to its removal?

I would like to see more room given to the history of the silhouette and to up-to-date scholarly information on its role in human perception and representation. sinarau (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems that you have recently added more information on the history, but without the appropriate heading History.

With regards to the gallery of recent images, it is a preventative measure. Without that gallery, every amateur photographer who takes a photo in silhouette is so delighted at having done so that they immediately head for the Wikipedia article and shove it at the top of the page. So the gallery at the bottom, for better or for worse, forms a repository of such images. I think it is valid, for the protection it affords the body of the article, for the demonstration of the way that silhouette continues to be used as an artistic form, for the delight that it gives some contributors and the encouragement to experiment that it gives to readers.

There is also some artistry to be considered in laying out the page. The addition of a picture previous to yours was not placed well. Your additions also made a mess. The reason why pics have been grouped in galleries is that they don't fit. You have commented that there is some repetition, and yes, there is. But within the galleries there has been an intention to display a variety of artistry. There were some extremely good images by recent artists, but they have been deleted, as breach of copyright. There has also been a skirmish over the right to use the famous E.T. poster, which is one of the best-known silhouette images of recent history, but this has failed.

Please continue to add history, but read carefully what is already there and work with it. Also, there is no point in including the full details of the Greek pot. It isn't relevant to the article, any more than the entire biography of Hans Anderson. Just give object name, place and appropriate links.

Amandajm (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

commons cat

Why not add commons category?

I wanted to add but I'm not sure where. jcubic (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

"Mythological origins"

I hope no one's upset that I changed this. I don't see how the story from Pliny is a "mythological origin". There's nothing divine or irrational about it. The term "mythological origin" does describe stories such as Syrinx's divine metamorphosis into the reeds from which Pan made his panpipes. The story Pliny has preserved describes a physical process that is not inherently implausible, attributed to a human inventor. It isn't really different from the invention of the telephone, which most people think of as the dramatic moment of Bell saying "Mr. Watson, come here!" That's the wrong way to think about it, of course; it was a long process, but that moment of culmination is thought to have actually happened – it isn't a myth in which Hermes comes to earth and delivers a communication system. So the reality is that you may not be able to pinpoint a single moment when an individual invented black-figure painting, and apparently Corinth and Sicyon both laid a claim as place of origin, but why should we think of Butades as only "mythological" and not an actual working potter? Pliny names other Greek vase painters that are historical and attested. Any stories he tells about them may be received with our skepticism without simply discounting them as fictions. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Galleries

Seems like far too many photographs in the "recent" photographs gallery, and it isn't clear what each one contributes to illustrating the article – while some are clearly notable for their subject matter, others not so much. (Also, "recent" is relative and not a very encyclopedic label.) In the miscellaneous gallery right above the photos, the captions are often too long. I tried to clarify the relation of images to text, but it's not really an adequate effort because there are too many images and not enough explanatory text. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)